Hi

don't know if that was a subject before. I had an idea about earthquakes.
If you'd imagine a gigantic solenoid from Myanmar to to the new lake in China over the sky through the lake, through the earth , over Birma and back to the atmosphere.
There could be tremendous currents acting as result of such coils. It could be possible, that such currents make the earth quake.
That would fit to the observation, that earthquakes are more often when it's raining.
On the other hand could such currents have effect on the weather.

Input to such a coil could come from the sun.
Is that possible?

Thomas Heger

First question is what would be driving the current that you are hinting at? And then how do you imagine that these currents make the Earth quake?

How would your idea fit the observation? Do you have any proof that earthquakes happen more often when it rains? From living in LA I have found quite the opposite.

Do you think it is feasible to have a big electric circuit as you are proposing? And don't you think we would have measured the magnetic signatures of such large current systems? And how will the sun give input to this coil?

There is a mission called DEMETER, which is looking at the Earth (some info here) and people are trying to find electromagnetic precursors of earthquakes. AFAIK up to now, nothing much has been found.

So I guess, in my opinion, no, it is not possible.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

(Something does not work here, so I will reply without quotes. Sorry!)

Hi and thanks for your reply.

I've been in a German newsgroup, where they are discussing this earthquake.
There was a photo about strange luminescent clouds near the earthquake and they were discussing that phenomenon.
I've got the idea, that this is looking like polar lights and that could be a hint for an electric relation.
There was the appearance of rain mentioned related to earthquakes. That could be in fact possible, if you imagine real big coils. This has a relation to conductivity and would make some sense.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi....2008.03735.xA
Why would that cause earthquakes?
Well- I'm working on a strange theory and I'm always looking for 'weired' phenomena to check my idea.
Guess the idea would be true, there could be a way to cause such earthquakes by big magnetic fields. It's difficult to explain in short, but You might look at my text:
http://docs.google.com/Present?docid...&skipauth=true

Greetings

Thomas Heger

I have some links in german, maybe you could ask google for translation

http://www.wissenschaft.de/wissensch...ws/288861.html
http://www.wissenschaft.de/wissensch...ws/277601.html
http://www.wissenschaft.de/wissensch...ws/246094.html

One more link:
http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/cgi-...;f=16;t=001380

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jul102007/41.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_weather
http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sc...4-633-2004.pdf

my statement is more about the reason of the quakes than about the reason of the radiation.
So I guess, it's more likely that the currents cause the quake, then the strange phenomena are caused by the quake. Mainly because the strange phenomena happen before the quake.

Thomas Heger

I think you need to pursue this in the ATM section.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

I agree. Not mainstream thought.

__________________
(By the way, I hate it that so many papers in the areas of planetary science and geology are not easily avaiable to the dreaded "non-subscribers". It is like they are screaming at me: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH". Good, I feel better now.)

I know you are a person who takes his physics seriously, but isn't it said that most great discoveries aren't discovered with "Eureka!" but with, "Hmmm, that's funny." Big Don

The link does not work, so i cannot check what you try to show here. As for the rain, see my comments on the links you provided below. You might also give the link to the "luminous cloud" and maybe it was just noctiluminiscence. Without a clear source we have nothing to go on.

Oh no, not quaternions again! and I cannot see why this has anything to do with electric earthquakes. "Quaternion physics" is just making it difficult for yourself to understand EM for example. I see no real service to mankind restating Maxwell's equations into quaternion notation.

[/quote]

Okay, the first wissencshaft.de link tells us that pressure in water pockets in the ground may increase pressure on the stone and create an earthquake. I guess this would be rather difficult to use to explain the Hector Mine earthquake in California.

Then the second link disputes your assumption as it says that rain stops earthquakes: Gewicht des sommerlichen Regens verringert die Bebenhäufigkeit im Himalaja (The weight of (the water of ) summer rain decreases the earthquake rate in the Himalaya)

And the third link talks about how the tides might create earthquakes.

I see nothing of electric earthquakes in the posts you gave.

In all I agree with Captain Swoop, this needs to be in ATM, and a lot lot lot better explained, preferably in normal and not quaternion physics, so that regular space physicists like me can understand what you are writing.

Okay then you have a next link, with a serious copy-right problem on the Weahterzone forum. I do not thing you can just copy the whole text of a paper. So, there we finally get some evidence for lights at earthquakes and an IMHO far fetched theory, but at least we are getting somewhere, and someone is doing some research on it (even if it is controversial, it has been pubished, gotta find the paper, here is the abstract, I have the pdf.)

But still the lights are caused by the quake, the quake is not caused by EM which then generates the lights. If you think that magnetic forces can get big enough to create an earthquake, please show us your calculations.

If the EM effects would really be so powerful, I don't think that we would have such a hard time finding the precursors for earthquakes. If I remember correctly from the Demeter workshop that was here in the building, it is very hard to find the signal in the data, and by the time you have found the precursor, the quake will already have occurred.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

Welcome to BAUT Thom! Hope your stay is a pleasant one.

Wow, a record! I disagree with Tusen, Capt. Swoop, and Redshift all in one thread! And I never disagree with them usually.

The qualifier at the end of the original post is where Thom states, "Is this possible?"

Thus it belongs here, not the ATM section. That's where it would go if he was saying "This is what REALLY happens in earthquakes, or some statement similar to that.

__________________
"The beauty of that discussion of averages is that you don't have to be an expert in Apollo or in photography in order to see where this time study "analysis" breaks down. You just have to be, well...not an idiot." -JayUtah

It started out OK. He asked, and got an answer.

Then it turned ATM, with not more earnest questions, but assertions that it must be so, made via links, and it-must-be-so-look-at-the-pictures. It's the usual pattern: ask a little to get it started, then tell a lot in order to promote.

Seen it a hundred times. Boring.

Why can't the ATM promotion be done with a new method?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

__________________
"God bless thee, my son; I will give thee the greatest jewel I have ...
"The end of our foundation is the knowledge of causes, and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible."Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

I hope I didn't annoy anyone. This forum is a bit different to usenet.
Anyhow.
Today I had an idea. It's strange and difficult to explain thou easy and obvious.
Take any book about physics. Any of your choice. Open it roughly in the middle and look at what you'd see. I guess, you'd see a lot of differentials and derivatives. Why do you think they are there?
Sounds like a real stupid question. But what does it mean to integrate?
It means, you sum something. That indicates, that sums are somehow the way, that nature works.
But that ain't true and and it's simple and obvious. If you take a bag of peas, than the interaction of one pea to the other is not a sum. It's mainly a rotation, because one pea is rotating the other. It's not a sum. You sum, the farmer sums, but peas don't. They rotate, if they do anything at all.
So the relation of fundamental objects shouldn't be described by integrals or derivatives. That is not how nature works.
The main connection is about multiplication. That is like a rotation, if you'd think about complex numbers.
So there is a reason to ask, how patterns look like, that you have in that kind of space. In short, they look like our world we live in.
If so, there is a reason to ask, whether electric phenomena have a relation to other phenomena, since there is only one world.

Thomas Heger

I think the idea is certainly interesting.

The pea thing threw me a bit, I suppose you are trying to say that the EM is a trigger some how for the shift. That is possible I suppose, like the sparkplug being the "spark" for an engine. The problem is how does the electric energy trigger the pressure gradiant between the plates to shift, slip and or slide.

Like I said, it would certainly be a question folks could fiddle around with, and it would certainly lead to good conversation and brain tease, but I have not heard nor read anything to make me believe that any geologist or meteorologist would take this too seriously or spend too much time exploring it. But it would be about a million to one long shot (or more) to win some scientist the nobel, so someone may take a little more than curious glace at it. Most natural scientists I believe are not that courageous and would much rather spend their time persuing grant money and tenure. Scientist after all lean towards the practical, generally speaking. The rest are call crackpots generally.

BTW, instead of cutting a pasting, just discuss it a bit in your own words.

Sorry, but I have not yet found out how to quote. I will, but I'd like to answer first.
I had an idea about a connection of GR to QM that is very simple. I called it a simple theory. It is about quaternion multiplication of spacetime elements.
The idea is simple, but I wasn't able to convince anybody. In fact nobody. I could do what I like, and everyone calls me a nutcase or worse. I don't talk of the 'men on the street', I mean trained physicists (what I'm not. Until recently I owned a bar.)
So I tried to convince people by concentrating on strange phenomena, like i.e. the Tajmar experiments.
I have written a longish text:
http://docs.google.com/Present?docid...&skipauth=true

This text was started to collect all my posts to the usenet with a simple method. Later I started to like the way of organizing a text like this, so I'll stick to these presentations for a while.
The text was my attempt to convince somebody, but it didn't work.

So, maybe I could convince you. Not to believe me, no. But try to imagine, how a world of multiplication would look like. I only want to convince you, that it's worth a try.
We usually regret this idea, because our genetic constitution prevents this, (but maybe a little dose of something illegal could help. )

Thomas Heger

This is just word salat! I can have a sliding pea hitting another pea, which then starts to slide and the first one stops, no rotation there, but ...... ohhh yeah, that quaternion stuff says that basically every interaction is a rotation, or something like that.

I't love to see you calculate how far a falling body moves over time knowing all the forces without integrating. Please show us.

I have no idea what you mean with what I bolded in your text.

Electric phenomena have a relation to magnetic phenomena, to light phenomena, to heat phenomena ....

Better than that wondering about what it means using differentials and integrals you might just read the book and learn something?

Now, please come up with a model in which you have the sun power some big *** solenoid which then creates earthquakes.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

Quite a few ATMers seem to think Physics works better i fyou get rid of all that tedious messing around in maths.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

I have to ask... you do realise Burma & Myanmar are the same place right? Which makes the bold bit a little hard to understand?

Also, what makes the 'current' of which you speak? Currents are typically about electrons & Earth potentials are normally discharged into atmosphere by lightning, not earthquakes. For the Sun to be producing such currents, we'd need to somehow ignore or remove both the van Allen belts AND the magnetosphere that protects Earth.

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

[quote=tusenfem;1251542]I try to convince to think about the possibility, that it is not just word salad. What do you like me to do. What kind of proof do you need?